On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
>         You've successfully hijacked a thread, unfortunately this
> means that most people ignored your message for one of the following
> reasons:
> 1) They were ignoring the thread that you hijacked, and your message
> was threaded under it.

 Gee, I hope that isn't the case, considering that thread consisted of 
one message from me. ;)

> You may be wondering, 'But how did *I* hijack a thread if I didn't even
> know what it was!' Well, generally this happens when you're too lazy to
> click 'compose message' or 'new message' and type in the address, instead
> you press the reply button in your reader, then change the subject of the
> message, thinking that you've created a whole new message (while saving
> yourself the effort of typing in 'tclug-list at mn-linux.org', i know, it's
> taxing!). Unfortunately your email program is sneaky, and knows that you
> pressed the reply button, and still puts that magic 'This message is in
> reply to that message' header in there!

 tclug-list at mn-linux.org?  You might want to modify your form letter for 
the TCWUG, Matt.

> These are examples of thread hijacking, and a mail reader that 'threads',
> or groups messages, in the example you can see that 'Bob Tanner' started
> a new thread with the subject 'greyhatpak additions?', then a person
> named 'Andrew Nemchenko' "hijacked" the thread, and wanted to say something
> about 'some small OT but usefull news', needless to say, he got flamed =)

 I suspect Bob started that thread to discuss tools for finding open mail 
relays, so he could spam people.  That slimeball...

 Post trimmed for brevity; I don't recall if Chewie's on this list.